Search
VT
Vamping the Stage: Female Voices of Asian Modernities
Andrew N. Weintraub, Bart Barendregt, Christine Reiko Yano and Yifen Tsau Beus
Book
The emergence of modernity has typically focused on Western male actors and privileged politics and...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Great Wall (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Disappointingly Pedestrian
Acclaimed director Zhang Yimou has been at the helm of some of China’s greatest film assets. 1991’s Raise the Red Lantern is widely regarded as one of the defining foreign-language films of its period and 2004’s House of Flying Daggers received huge critical acclamation for its stunning cinematography and exceptional script.
Here, Yimou teams up with one of Hollywood’s greatest assets, Matt Damon in a monster flick to rival all others. But does The Great Wall showcase the very best from its director and leading man?
When a mercenary warrior on the run from a group of bandits (Matt Damon) is imprisoned within China’s magnificent Great Wall, he discovers the mystery behind one of the greatest wonders of the world. As surge after surge of snarling, prowling beasts called Taotie besiege the massive construction, his quest for immeasurable fortune turns into a journey toward heroism. He joins a vast army of elite Chinese soldiers to confront the unimaginable and seemingly unstoppable force.
Unfortunately, The Great Wall squanders the talents of both Damon and Yimou with an unnecessarily dense script overriding any sense of drama. To be honest, it’s all just a bit of a bore.
The cast is fine but so vast that Damon and Jin Tian, who we will see again very soon in Kong: Skull Island, are the only stars to make any sort of impact. Even then, a poor script stops them from being anything but cardboard cut-outs. There is no character development whatsoever. In fact, as I write this paragraph I nearly forgot to mention Willem Dafoe. He makes no impact on the final outcome at all.
Elsewhere, the special effects range from laughably poor to adequate and certainly not befitting of a film costing well over $200million. The wall itself is rendered in decent CGI and the numerous battle scenes have a reasonably immersive feel, but the Taotie lacks realism and as the main antagonists throughout, this is a serious problem.
The cinematography too is not up to the standard of Yimou’s previous works. Relying far too heavily on green screen, it wastes his incredible eye for detail and continuously feels like you’re sat watching a very expensive video game. As with last year’s Gods of Egypt, there’s a certain glossy quality to the picture that dominates and this is what stops it being believable.
Nevertheless, the music is very good indeed. Ramin Djawadi has scored big budget blockbusters like Iron Man and Pacific Rim with The Great Wall taking a few influences from the latter. It’s definitely the saving grace here and alleviates a couple of the shortcomings.
Overall, The Great Wall is a film unworthy of the talent both behind and in front of the lens. It’s crammed full of poor CGI and uninspiring cinematography, though its great score is unquestionably a highlight. With such good subject matter, it feels like a bit of a wasted opportunity.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/02/18/the-great-wall-disappointingly-pedestrian/
Here, Yimou teams up with one of Hollywood’s greatest assets, Matt Damon in a monster flick to rival all others. But does The Great Wall showcase the very best from its director and leading man?
When a mercenary warrior on the run from a group of bandits (Matt Damon) is imprisoned within China’s magnificent Great Wall, he discovers the mystery behind one of the greatest wonders of the world. As surge after surge of snarling, prowling beasts called Taotie besiege the massive construction, his quest for immeasurable fortune turns into a journey toward heroism. He joins a vast army of elite Chinese soldiers to confront the unimaginable and seemingly unstoppable force.
Unfortunately, The Great Wall squanders the talents of both Damon and Yimou with an unnecessarily dense script overriding any sense of drama. To be honest, it’s all just a bit of a bore.
The cast is fine but so vast that Damon and Jin Tian, who we will see again very soon in Kong: Skull Island, are the only stars to make any sort of impact. Even then, a poor script stops them from being anything but cardboard cut-outs. There is no character development whatsoever. In fact, as I write this paragraph I nearly forgot to mention Willem Dafoe. He makes no impact on the final outcome at all.
Elsewhere, the special effects range from laughably poor to adequate and certainly not befitting of a film costing well over $200million. The wall itself is rendered in decent CGI and the numerous battle scenes have a reasonably immersive feel, but the Taotie lacks realism and as the main antagonists throughout, this is a serious problem.
The cinematography too is not up to the standard of Yimou’s previous works. Relying far too heavily on green screen, it wastes his incredible eye for detail and continuously feels like you’re sat watching a very expensive video game. As with last year’s Gods of Egypt, there’s a certain glossy quality to the picture that dominates and this is what stops it being believable.
Nevertheless, the music is very good indeed. Ramin Djawadi has scored big budget blockbusters like Iron Man and Pacific Rim with The Great Wall taking a few influences from the latter. It’s definitely the saving grace here and alleviates a couple of the shortcomings.
Overall, The Great Wall is a film unworthy of the talent both behind and in front of the lens. It’s crammed full of poor CGI and uninspiring cinematography, though its great score is unquestionably a highlight. With such good subject matter, it feels like a bit of a wasted opportunity.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/02/18/the-great-wall-disappointingly-pedestrian/
Lilyn G - Sci-Fi & Scary (91 KP) rated The Mummy (2017) in Movies
Jun 19, 2018
Blech
The Mummy was a completely awesome movie! Filled with perfectly timed comedy, a strong female heroine, a somewhat sinister Mummy, and great lines! I’m talking, of course, about the 1999 version of The Mummy. The one starring Brendan Fraser and the wonderful Rachel Weisz.
The remake tried to be a great movie and slid in somewhere around “mediocre at best”. As one might expect, this was Tom Cruise playing Tom Cruise. (Does the man ever actually try to play someone other than himself? Serious question.) Sofia Boutella is blandly proficient as the scantily clad mummy who couldn’t ooze menace or evil if her life depended on it. Given that we’re supposed to accept that this chick killed her baby half-brother and her father, you’d think there’d be something in the way of evil there. Instead she just comes across as your typical vengeful, wanton female. Annabelle Wallis was about as good as Boutella was. And I did not buy Crowe’s Jekyll/Hyde at all.
Why was there a wet white t-shirt scene in The Mummy? Did not a single person making it go “You know, maybe we should have her put on a different color shirt?” Because it’s not like the wet white t-shirt is a blatant aim to give guys something to beat off to or anything. Between Boutella’s outfit and the “Lookit! Boobies!” of that particular scene, it was obvious that the film crew wasn’t exactly confident of their success in the movie being popular on it’s premise or the actors’ abilities alone.
Now, I do give them credit for the hiring of Sofia Boutella. She looked right for the role. However, why did we have to do the contrast of the evil foreign female against the stereotypical white female again. (Blonde hair, blue eyes, etc. etc. You really can’t get more white.) This is, admittedly, more predominant in my mind since seeing the criticism that Wonder Woman got for the very minor role African Americans played in the film. I couldn’t help but think “Really, how hard would it have been to hire an African American female for Jenny’s role?” And then it would have avoided the white girls vs the other girls thing. But, yeah, no, that’s too difficult a concept for the people making the casting decisions to understand.
(On a lighter note: A blonde-haired, blue-eyed Jenny meant every time she was on screen, I kept expecting Forest Gump to yell for her from off screen.)
The action was fine, with nothing new thrown in. Some of the scenes are recognizable from the better The Mummy. The dialogue was acceptable, but nothing to write home about.
Do yourself a favor and just watch The Mummy movie from 1999. It’s by far the better film experience. This one wasn’t bad, but it certainly wasn’t very good.
The remake tried to be a great movie and slid in somewhere around “mediocre at best”. As one might expect, this was Tom Cruise playing Tom Cruise. (Does the man ever actually try to play someone other than himself? Serious question.) Sofia Boutella is blandly proficient as the scantily clad mummy who couldn’t ooze menace or evil if her life depended on it. Given that we’re supposed to accept that this chick killed her baby half-brother and her father, you’d think there’d be something in the way of evil there. Instead she just comes across as your typical vengeful, wanton female. Annabelle Wallis was about as good as Boutella was. And I did not buy Crowe’s Jekyll/Hyde at all.
Why was there a wet white t-shirt scene in The Mummy? Did not a single person making it go “You know, maybe we should have her put on a different color shirt?” Because it’s not like the wet white t-shirt is a blatant aim to give guys something to beat off to or anything. Between Boutella’s outfit and the “Lookit! Boobies!” of that particular scene, it was obvious that the film crew wasn’t exactly confident of their success in the movie being popular on it’s premise or the actors’ abilities alone.
Now, I do give them credit for the hiring of Sofia Boutella. She looked right for the role. However, why did we have to do the contrast of the evil foreign female against the stereotypical white female again. (Blonde hair, blue eyes, etc. etc. You really can’t get more white.) This is, admittedly, more predominant in my mind since seeing the criticism that Wonder Woman got for the very minor role African Americans played in the film. I couldn’t help but think “Really, how hard would it have been to hire an African American female for Jenny’s role?” And then it would have avoided the white girls vs the other girls thing. But, yeah, no, that’s too difficult a concept for the people making the casting decisions to understand.
(On a lighter note: A blonde-haired, blue-eyed Jenny meant every time she was on screen, I kept expecting Forest Gump to yell for her from off screen.)
The action was fine, with nothing new thrown in. Some of the scenes are recognizable from the better The Mummy. The dialogue was acceptable, but nothing to write home about.
Do yourself a favor and just watch The Mummy movie from 1999. It’s by far the better film experience. This one wasn’t bad, but it certainly wasn’t very good.
Bai Ling recommended Red Corner (1997) in Movies (curated)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated 3 Idiots (2009) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
So, I am writing a coffee table book that selects the 200 top films of 2000 – 2019. Called, predictably, 21st Century Cinema: 200 Unmissable films. It uses a system of rating I devised called The Decinemal, which takes the ten categories by which a film can be rated (Direction, Script, Design, Lead Acting, Support Acting, Music, Photography, Critical Acclaim, Watchability and X-Factor) and scores them out of 10, to give an overall score out of 100. Whilst not foolproof, it does give a remarkable working basis for comparing movies of different genres, and the ratings often bear a striking relation to the democratic system used by IMDb – a film scoring 7.2 on that website might be a 75 decinemal, for example, and that feels like that validates its use.
It has been a very fun, if time consuming, project. The difficulty is keeping up with new releases every year, and trying to catch some of the more obscure foreign language films out there that get high scores on IMDb. One such film was 3 Idiots, to date the highest rated Bollywood film on that website, with a score of 8.5; which is high! Very high! So I have to watch it and find out for myself.
Now, Bollywood is not me for, barring the odd amusement of how bizarre they can be. I find the musical interludes often grating and incongruous, and the melodramatic acting styles something that the cinema of most other countries outgrew decades ago. So it is hard for me to be objective about it. On the whole they just don’t compete on any level with American, European or, well, any other country’s output. In short, I would never normally watch one at all.
Surprisingly, I found 3 Idiots, although clownish and OTT, quite entertaining from the start. I even found one or two of the obligatory musical numbers very catchy and a lot of fun! Also, lead actor Aamir Khan, one of India’s biggest stars, was very charming and watchable. Of course, it is colourful, loud and has a childish sensibility, but some moments made me genuinely laugh. The main problem actually came from it being padded out to almost 2 and 1/2 hours, which was far too long for comfort. If it had been more economical I may have even been able to say it was worth watching.
Sadly, it is the moments of cultural difference and pure silliness that dragged it down. Despite its positive points, ultimately it is a mess, and to compare it on the standard I judge all films I see I have to be fair and not patronise it. Certainly in terms of the Bollywood fare I have seen bits of over the years, I can see why it is so well thought of. I can also see how films like this gain such a high rating, because it is the native audience it was made for that cast the votes. Which is fair enough, but does give it an unreasonably high score.
I think if more people watched it and rated it, it would balance out at a 6.5, and it probably deserves that for sheer entertainment value. I have certainly seen many worse films! Applying The Decinemal objectively, however, it comes out like this: Direction 4, Script 5, Design 6, Lead Acting 6, Support acting 4, Music 5, Photography 6, Critical Acclaim 7, Wachability 5, x-Factor 6. Added up that gives it a Decinemal of 54 – a far cry from the 74 it would have needed to make my top 200. And I stand by that score, as the level of likelihood of everyone’s enjoyment of it.
To an extent it discourages me from watching anything from this part of the world again, but I can’t say I didn’t appreciate why it was such a big hit. Interesting.
It has been a very fun, if time consuming, project. The difficulty is keeping up with new releases every year, and trying to catch some of the more obscure foreign language films out there that get high scores on IMDb. One such film was 3 Idiots, to date the highest rated Bollywood film on that website, with a score of 8.5; which is high! Very high! So I have to watch it and find out for myself.
Now, Bollywood is not me for, barring the odd amusement of how bizarre they can be. I find the musical interludes often grating and incongruous, and the melodramatic acting styles something that the cinema of most other countries outgrew decades ago. So it is hard for me to be objective about it. On the whole they just don’t compete on any level with American, European or, well, any other country’s output. In short, I would never normally watch one at all.
Surprisingly, I found 3 Idiots, although clownish and OTT, quite entertaining from the start. I even found one or two of the obligatory musical numbers very catchy and a lot of fun! Also, lead actor Aamir Khan, one of India’s biggest stars, was very charming and watchable. Of course, it is colourful, loud and has a childish sensibility, but some moments made me genuinely laugh. The main problem actually came from it being padded out to almost 2 and 1/2 hours, which was far too long for comfort. If it had been more economical I may have even been able to say it was worth watching.
Sadly, it is the moments of cultural difference and pure silliness that dragged it down. Despite its positive points, ultimately it is a mess, and to compare it on the standard I judge all films I see I have to be fair and not patronise it. Certainly in terms of the Bollywood fare I have seen bits of over the years, I can see why it is so well thought of. I can also see how films like this gain such a high rating, because it is the native audience it was made for that cast the votes. Which is fair enough, but does give it an unreasonably high score.
I think if more people watched it and rated it, it would balance out at a 6.5, and it probably deserves that for sheer entertainment value. I have certainly seen many worse films! Applying The Decinemal objectively, however, it comes out like this: Direction 4, Script 5, Design 6, Lead Acting 6, Support acting 4, Music 5, Photography 6, Critical Acclaim 7, Wachability 5, x-Factor 6. Added up that gives it a Decinemal of 54 – a far cry from the 74 it would have needed to make my top 200. And I stand by that score, as the level of likelihood of everyone’s enjoyment of it.
To an extent it discourages me from watching anything from this part of the world again, but I can’t say I didn’t appreciate why it was such a big hit. Interesting.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Höstsonaten (Autumn Sonata) (1978) in Movies
Jan 28, 2021
I have been familiar with Bergman for a long time, having seen Summer With Monika, Wild Strawberries and The Seventh Seal at a young age. They were more or less my first experience of foreign language art cinema that I sort of understood and liked. Something about the practical and economical way conversations happen in Bergman appeals to me. They tend to lack melodrama and romance, but are intellectually satisfying and often dramatically devastating. None more so than this mindbendingly sad tale of a mother and daughter in conflict. Bergman’s regular muses Ingmar Bergman and Liv Ullmann go head to head in a masterclass of acting that left me in utter awe. It reminded me of the first time I saw Gena Rowlands in A Woman Under the Influence – such soul-wrenching honest of emotion, it is almost unbearable. In a good way.
The fact that something is bleak has never put me off, and Bergman too is completely unafraid of leaving you entirely depressed. In fact, I wish Hollywood wasn’t so afraid of it. Very few films with personal conflicts this strong spring to mind – perhaps Blue Valentine is as close as it gets. But on the scale of rhetorical blows to the emotional solar plexus, that would be a 4 and Autumn Sonata would be a 9. Truthfully, I have seen few things so brutal and painful played out in film form. Guilt, blame, regret, denial, shame and loss cut to the bone, making the key scenes at the crescendo very hard to watch, but also brilliant because of it. Visually it is warm and cosy enough, but quite static, like a stage play, but of course Bergman was aware of this. He wants us to focus on the people, and so we do. A blindingly strong work of art all round. Just not something you want to revisit too often.
The fact that something is bleak has never put me off, and Bergman too is completely unafraid of leaving you entirely depressed. In fact, I wish Hollywood wasn’t so afraid of it. Very few films with personal conflicts this strong spring to mind – perhaps Blue Valentine is as close as it gets. But on the scale of rhetorical blows to the emotional solar plexus, that would be a 4 and Autumn Sonata would be a 9. Truthfully, I have seen few things so brutal and painful played out in film form. Guilt, blame, regret, denial, shame and loss cut to the bone, making the key scenes at the crescendo very hard to watch, but also brilliant because of it. Visually it is warm and cosy enough, but quite static, like a stage play, but of course Bergman was aware of this. He wants us to focus on the people, and so we do. A blindingly strong work of art all round. Just not something you want to revisit too often.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Aquaman (2018) in Movies
Jun 8, 2019
"war is coming to the surface"
Aquaman is absolutely a disciple of the superhero formula we've seen used, reused and recycled over the past couple decades...but its formula done right. There's an inherent lunacy to a hero like Aquaman; his myth is built upon a lost Atlantean culture that's simultaneously advanced technologically and heavily influenced by ancient Greek mythology, and his powers included near-Superman levels of strength and invulnerability existing alongside an ability to communicate with marine life. This makes approaching his story from a gritty, realistic perspective damn near impossible.
Instead Wan and the writers behind Aquaman intelligently focus on world-building and following the tried-and-true "heroic journey"; complete with initial rejection of a prophesied role, slow but steady immersion into said role's culture, recognition of the need for growth and change, and eventual assumption of role. It's been seen before and it'll be seen again. But what propels Aquaman ahead of other films like it is the energy that Wan imbues it with. It's goofy without undermining the sincerity of Arthur's journey. It's fast-paced and simple-minded without sacrificing the weight and universality of this particular hero's myth. It's loud and colorful and *full* of CGI everything without reducing itself to an over-commercialized, artless heap of nothingness.
It's a big-ass blockbuster with personality. Momoa has charisma to spare; he owns the physicality and irreverence of this new imagining of the king of the ocean perfectly. Amber Heard is sexy and badass as Mera; something of a victim of a forced romance but also a compelling and strong protagonist in her own right. Patrick Wilson as Oceanmaster (call me....Oceanmaster) is given enough screen-time to develop that he's more than a punching bag for Aquaman; but actually a character with ambitions and a defined, fleshed-out purpose. The origin segment is tightly done and more than enough to set the stage for what is to come. And probably the strongest aspect of this picture, the costuming and world-building, is off the charts. Similar to the enduring fantasy films that precede this (LOTR, Star Wars, Avatar for a few examples) the undersea kingdoms are a place I want to return to. They aren't just my world dressed up with CGI and the occasional costuming flourish; they're entirely foreign and endlessly inventive. Probably a solid third of the film is simply Aquaman, and the audience, being told about this world and shown it by Mera. While that may not be artistically prestigious strategy for engaging audiences, it entertains and fascinates on a "turn off your brain and look at those pretty colors" sort of way. There's a simple glee in seeing sharks ridden like horses or an octopus pounding a war-time set of drums.
I always offer the disclaimer when writing about nerdy films that I love which is this: I am a nerd. While I wasn't particularly attached to Aquaman growing up; his journey, the nature of this sort of film and the cinematic universe he will be growing into are fundamentally important to me, and I like to embrace that bias rather than keep it in check with reduced ratings or "objective" analysis. Whether it be a giant, confusing and chaotic battle between underwater armies or the horrifying descent into "the trench"; you'll always find me looking up at the screen like a little kid. Or moments like Arthur meeting Mera and confronting is past, or taking upon the role of king while wielding the trident; I just love that sort of stuff. I'm a sucker for these beats and this formula; and all signs point to this continuing. So while I may like it more than most; I'd mostly like to say Aquaman still distinguishes itself as a particularly goofy, sprawling, mythic, and metal experience that deserved to be seen on the big-screen, and to be celebrated as the fantasy film it is. It's a great time, and a nice addition to the DC film franchise.
Instead Wan and the writers behind Aquaman intelligently focus on world-building and following the tried-and-true "heroic journey"; complete with initial rejection of a prophesied role, slow but steady immersion into said role's culture, recognition of the need for growth and change, and eventual assumption of role. It's been seen before and it'll be seen again. But what propels Aquaman ahead of other films like it is the energy that Wan imbues it with. It's goofy without undermining the sincerity of Arthur's journey. It's fast-paced and simple-minded without sacrificing the weight and universality of this particular hero's myth. It's loud and colorful and *full* of CGI everything without reducing itself to an over-commercialized, artless heap of nothingness.
It's a big-ass blockbuster with personality. Momoa has charisma to spare; he owns the physicality and irreverence of this new imagining of the king of the ocean perfectly. Amber Heard is sexy and badass as Mera; something of a victim of a forced romance but also a compelling and strong protagonist in her own right. Patrick Wilson as Oceanmaster (call me....Oceanmaster) is given enough screen-time to develop that he's more than a punching bag for Aquaman; but actually a character with ambitions and a defined, fleshed-out purpose. The origin segment is tightly done and more than enough to set the stage for what is to come. And probably the strongest aspect of this picture, the costuming and world-building, is off the charts. Similar to the enduring fantasy films that precede this (LOTR, Star Wars, Avatar for a few examples) the undersea kingdoms are a place I want to return to. They aren't just my world dressed up with CGI and the occasional costuming flourish; they're entirely foreign and endlessly inventive. Probably a solid third of the film is simply Aquaman, and the audience, being told about this world and shown it by Mera. While that may not be artistically prestigious strategy for engaging audiences, it entertains and fascinates on a "turn off your brain and look at those pretty colors" sort of way. There's a simple glee in seeing sharks ridden like horses or an octopus pounding a war-time set of drums.
I always offer the disclaimer when writing about nerdy films that I love which is this: I am a nerd. While I wasn't particularly attached to Aquaman growing up; his journey, the nature of this sort of film and the cinematic universe he will be growing into are fundamentally important to me, and I like to embrace that bias rather than keep it in check with reduced ratings or "objective" analysis. Whether it be a giant, confusing and chaotic battle between underwater armies or the horrifying descent into "the trench"; you'll always find me looking up at the screen like a little kid. Or moments like Arthur meeting Mera and confronting is past, or taking upon the role of king while wielding the trident; I just love that sort of stuff. I'm a sucker for these beats and this formula; and all signs point to this continuing. So while I may like it more than most; I'd mostly like to say Aquaman still distinguishes itself as a particularly goofy, sprawling, mythic, and metal experience that deserved to be seen on the big-screen, and to be celebrated as the fantasy film it is. It's a great time, and a nice addition to the DC film franchise.
Kyera (8 KP) rated Anna and the French Kiss in Books
Feb 1, 2018
What happens when your nouveau-riche father decides that his daughter needs to be more cultures? Your entire world is flipped upside-down as you're sent to a boarding school in a country where you don't speak the language. That's exactly what happens to Anna when she's sent to the School of America, in Paris. She now must make new friends, try to stay in touch with her old ones and the most terrifying ordeal of all? Ordering her meals in French. She might want some nice fresh <i>pain</i> (bread) but ends up saying <i>paon</i> (peacock). Yum, <i>paon</i> and <i>fromage</i> for breakfast.
It may seem strange, but I enjoy the use of language in this book. I think accents, like St. Clair's are written very authentically. Bridge's love of words is a great way to introduce readers to new worlds. (And seriously inspires me to see if I can find a set of Oxford English Dictionaries for my personal library.) The use of foreign languages in books can be tricky to do well, but I think the author struck a balance brilliantly.
I find Anna very relatable - it doesn't hurt that she's a fellow lefty. But I also feel like she reads older than she is. Throughout the novel, I feel like she is at University (aged 19-20) rather than still in high school. Her desire to be a film ritic is how I feel about books and reviewing. She says, "I just like... expressing my opinion. That possiblity of turning someone on to something really great." Reading is my passion and I wan to share that with people. If I can introduce them to a book I've fallen in love with and it touches them in some way - I'm happy.
When I read the novel, I can feel myself walking along the Seine or admiring Notre Dame. Paris is a beautiful setting adn the author represents it wonderfully. It is one of those novels that gives you wanderlust and an undeniable urge to visit the places that Anna does.
It may seem strange, but I enjoy the use of language in this book. I think accents, like St. Clair's are written very authentically. Bridge's love of words is a great way to introduce readers to new worlds. (And seriously inspires me to see if I can find a set of Oxford English Dictionaries for my personal library.) The use of foreign languages in books can be tricky to do well, but I think the author struck a balance brilliantly.
I find Anna very relatable - it doesn't hurt that she's a fellow lefty. But I also feel like she reads older than she is. Throughout the novel, I feel like she is at University (aged 19-20) rather than still in high school. Her desire to be a film ritic is how I feel about books and reviewing. She says, "I just like... expressing my opinion. That possiblity of turning someone on to something really great." Reading is my passion and I wan to share that with people. If I can introduce them to a book I've fallen in love with and it touches them in some way - I'm happy.
When I read the novel, I can feel myself walking along the Seine or admiring Notre Dame. Paris is a beautiful setting adn the author represents it wonderfully. It is one of those novels that gives you wanderlust and an undeniable urge to visit the places that Anna does.
Mooveez - English with movies
Education and Entertainment
App
Digital Innovation of the year 2016 according to the British Council Thanks to this unique...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Spycies (2020) in Movies
Feb 22, 2020
A lot of the obscure kid's films I see at the cinema just appear with no warning, that means an exciting trip of uncertainty!
Vladimir the cat is a top spy at the Agency but after causing so much damage to property in a recent mission he's sent out to a remote station as penance. There he meets Hector, a tech genius rat who's isolation has left him craving company and eager to bond.
There isn't much excitement in their lives, just Hector's soaps on TV and trying to decide which pizza to heat up. Until one day the dullness is interrupted by a team who infiltrate the compound and steal something from the vault. After they make their escape Vlad and Hector head home to hunt down the perpetrators and get back what was stolen.
What I want to say about Spycies first is that the animation is amazing. I was blown away by some of the shots. The poster states it's from the animators of Despicable Me, Minions and The Secret Life Of Pets, I really thought this was an attempt to cash in on connections, and it is to an extent as this is relatively unknown but it does stand on its own once you see it.
The station that Hector and Vladimir are on is an oil rig out in open water and a lot of the shots are done during a storm, these scenes are incredible. One in particular felt like real footage and not animation, it was absolutely beautiful.
There's no denying that this is Zootropolis/Zootopia with spies, that thought bothered me more after watching it than it did during. It feels like they made a very specific selection of animals to be different. The other big difference is that it's clear it's set at some point in the future, and this is probably my only major issue.
Futuristic isn't something you really get from the world of Spycies, apart from when you look at the vehicles. The opening sequence, while epic on action movie scales, was very chaotic and the vehicles being new and unusual just added to that. With so much tradition around the film this felt out of place.
As an adult watching this film it was noticeable that it was made for a foreign market, it has clear regional influences that might not land for everyone but I suspect that the kids won't be too bothered about them.
I quite like the story but it isn't necessarily anything new. James Bond (yes, there's a Bond, James Bond moment in there) meets Zootropolis with flashes of Spies In Disguise. Familiar might feel stale but I enjoyed it. The script doesn't quite fit with the audience it's aimed at, it's probably not quite fun enough for kids but there's plenty of action and slapstick to keep them entertained as well as adults.
[On the title itself... I'm assuming it's a play on the word "species"?]
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/spycies-movie-review.html
Vladimir the cat is a top spy at the Agency but after causing so much damage to property in a recent mission he's sent out to a remote station as penance. There he meets Hector, a tech genius rat who's isolation has left him craving company and eager to bond.
There isn't much excitement in their lives, just Hector's soaps on TV and trying to decide which pizza to heat up. Until one day the dullness is interrupted by a team who infiltrate the compound and steal something from the vault. After they make their escape Vlad and Hector head home to hunt down the perpetrators and get back what was stolen.
What I want to say about Spycies first is that the animation is amazing. I was blown away by some of the shots. The poster states it's from the animators of Despicable Me, Minions and The Secret Life Of Pets, I really thought this was an attempt to cash in on connections, and it is to an extent as this is relatively unknown but it does stand on its own once you see it.
The station that Hector and Vladimir are on is an oil rig out in open water and a lot of the shots are done during a storm, these scenes are incredible. One in particular felt like real footage and not animation, it was absolutely beautiful.
There's no denying that this is Zootropolis/Zootopia with spies, that thought bothered me more after watching it than it did during. It feels like they made a very specific selection of animals to be different. The other big difference is that it's clear it's set at some point in the future, and this is probably my only major issue.
Futuristic isn't something you really get from the world of Spycies, apart from when you look at the vehicles. The opening sequence, while epic on action movie scales, was very chaotic and the vehicles being new and unusual just added to that. With so much tradition around the film this felt out of place.
As an adult watching this film it was noticeable that it was made for a foreign market, it has clear regional influences that might not land for everyone but I suspect that the kids won't be too bothered about them.
I quite like the story but it isn't necessarily anything new. James Bond (yes, there's a Bond, James Bond moment in there) meets Zootropolis with flashes of Spies In Disguise. Familiar might feel stale but I enjoyed it. The script doesn't quite fit with the audience it's aimed at, it's probably not quite fun enough for kids but there's plenty of action and slapstick to keep them entertained as well as adults.
[On the title itself... I'm assuming it's a play on the word "species"?]
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/spycies-movie-review.html